How much longer for the ANV?

[Bloody 11th]

Just wanted to hear your opinions of how much longer the famed Army of Northern Virginia would have lasted if Grant doesn't come east and basically take over the Army of the Potomac(Meade is still labeled in charge of the AP"yeah right").
Now Sherman still marches and Hood and Johnston's armies do not unite with Lee. Grant stays west. Meade is really in charge of the AP.
In my opinion the war would last another year. Lee's army would of been able to holdout longer without the constant drain of men and resources.
I don't hold Grant as high in regard as some might, outside of my top 5 U.S. Generals. If you take Grant's Overland Campaign away in the spring and summer of 64' then it would have became very interesting. You do have to give Grant the credit he did what was completely necessary to take the ANV down. Move by the right flank!
So what if? I'm thinking Lincoln does stay with Meade. Lee and Meade meet on a couple more major battlefields. Lee maybe makes a move north again instead of being sieged at Petersburg. Possibly towards D.C. Lee could not withstand another major defeat this time on or almost on Northern soil again and surrenders that part of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the summer of 66'.
So what if Grant doesn't come east? Thoughts?

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

He moved by the left flank...

 

[leftyhunter]

Just wanted to hear your opinions of how much longer the famed Army of Northern Virginia would have lasted if Grant doesn't come east and basically take over the Army of the Potomac(Meade is still labeled in charge of the AP"yeah right").
Now Sherman still marches and Hood and Johnston's armies do not unite with Lee. Grant stays west. Meade is really in charge of the AP.
In my opinion the war would last another year. Lee's army would of been able to holdout longer without the constant drain of men and resources.
I don't hold Grant as high in regard as some might, outside of my top 5 U.S. Generals. If you take Grant's Overland Campaign away in the spring and summer of 64' then it would have became very interesting. You do have to give Grant the credit he did what was completely necessary to take the ANV down. Move by the right flank!
So what if? I'm thinking Lincoln does stay with Meade. Lee and Meade meet on a couple more major battlefields. Lee maybe makes a move north again instead of being sieged at Petersburg. Possibly towards D.C. Lee could not withstand another major defeat this time on or almost on Northern soil again and surrenders that part of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the summer of 66'.
So what if Grant doesn't come east? Thoughts?

With the fall of Fort Fisher and heavy desertion from Georgia, and the Carolinas due to Sherman's March plus recruitment of freed slaves into the USCT things ain't looking good for the AnV. The AnV needed imported food from Europe. Food is difficult to get from the Carolina's due to Sherman's March.
Leftyhunter

 

[DaveBrt]

Even without Grant, Lee and Richmond were desperately short of food and fodder in the winter/spring of '64. Lee's horses were in terrible condition when the '64 season started. Lee said he was restricted to a one-day march from the railroads because he had so few and such weak horses to haul his artillery and wagons. The cavalry was also hurting.

So, Lee could do little but wait for the Union general to come to him. If successful in battle, Lee still could do nothing aggressive -- no third invasion of the North. Lee was still dangerous, but was like a ferocious dog tied to a stake -- just stay out of his reach and you could do what you wanted to. The question, which I have not thought through, is what could you do, out of Lee's reach, to destroy the South?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Under what scenario I wonder does Grant not come east? The only two I can think of offhand are something happens to Sherman, or Grant is denied being able to command in the field (his promotion to head of the Union Army is made contingent on him staying in Washington; he declines).

Do we have any evidence of what Meade was thinking of doing in 1864 before Grant came east? Given how much time he spend defending himself in Washington he probably didn't have a great deal to spare...

I like Meade, but I don't see Meade on his own relentlessly trying to flank Lee, nor lunging across the James, nor stripping the defenses of Washington for reinforcements. On the other hand, the body count in Virginia in 1864 would have been much lower.

One scenario:
Even if Meade and Lee spar in Virginia in a series of inclusive battles, events elsewhere probably don't change much. Events in the Valley probably play out differently; Lee can probably afford to keep a larger force there, but with the AotP probably closer to home and the Washington defenses stronger there is no grand raid by Early. Maybe a healthy Longstreet replaces Johnston instead of Hood? Hood doesn't bleed the army out, but Atlanta still falls. Lincoln is reelected - a delay in Atlanta's capture is offset by far few casualties in Virginia. Sherman/Grant and Longstreet fight a series of small battles across Georgia; there is no March to the Sea, but Savannah still falls and Longstreet is relieved, maybe now replaced by Hood. Mobile falls, possibly earlier depending on the circumstances of Grant not coming east. Fort Fisher still falls. It would be interesting to see what happens to the Army of the James without the AotP arriving at Petersburg; maybe that operation never takes place, or maybe Butler is eventually withdrawn. In any event, 1865 sees different circumstances and slower progress, but the same result of the Union army driving toward Richmond from the South. The two main Confederate armies combine against one of the two main Union armies, fight the last great battle of the war in the summer of 1865, and the CSA still goes down in defeat before the end of the year.

 

[leftyhunter]

Even without Grant, Lee and Richmond were desperately short of food and fodder in the winter/spring of '64. Lee's horses were in terrible condition when the '64 season started. Lee said he was restricted to a one-day march from the railroads because he had so few and such weak horses to haul his artillery and wagons. The cavalry was also hurting.

So, Lee could do little but wait for the Union general to come to him. If successful in battle, Lee still could do nothing aggressive -- no third invasion of the North. Lee was still dangerous, but was like a ferocious dog tied to a stake -- just stay out of his reach and you could do what you wanted to. The question, which I have not thought through, is what could you do, out of Lee's reach, to destroy the South?

Actually plenty such as seizing all the Southern sports which effectively destroy the economy of the Confederacy. Support Unionist guerrillas in a wider area. For example the US Navy along the South East Florida Coast successfully supported Unionist guerrillas that did real damage to the local Confederacy. Union forces supported Unionist guerrillas in Northern Alabama and Unionist militia in Eastern Tennessee. There where Union calvery raids towards the end of the war that caused a lot of damage. I forgot the name but one Union calvery General even beat Forest. Once Hood destroyed the AoT , Sherman's rampage in Georgia, Unionist uprisings , the Confederacy was doomed.
Leftyhunter

 

[JCM6395]

If Grant stays in the west then would he do Grant's March or head somewhere else? He definitely would have marched on Atlanta but didn't he have a thing for Mobile?

 

[Jamieva]

If Grant stays in the west then would he do Grant's March or head somewhere else? He definitely would have marched on Atlanta but didn't he have a thing for Mobile?

If Grant had stayed in the west he would've stuck to the AoT just like he did in the East. his goals were not geographical they were the southern army opposing him. Where he goes I go

 

[Carronade]

I think the scenario would be Grant not becoming general-in-chief but remaining as commander of the western theater/Military Division of the Mississippi. Would he be able to speed up the pace of events there? For example, I don't Sherman getting to Atlanta any sooner if Grant was his overall commander. Grant did have an interest in Mobile, as did Farragut and others, but as I understand it, a move on Mobile was delayed by the priority given to the Red River expedition.

In the east, the war would probably continue much as it had since 1862 - occasional offensive moves, a major battle every few months, but neither side achieving a decisive victory. I don't see anyone but Grant putting Lee under the unrelenting pressure of the Overland campaign.

So we have a continuing stalemate in the east, and steady Union progress in the west. The real question is what the Confederates could do about it. Historically the biggest setback to the Union in the west came when the Confederates shifted troops from the ANV, which they felt safe doing even in the aftermath of Gettysburg. With Meade still directing the AofP in 1864, the Confederates might be able to do it again.

The Confederates' best hope was for the Union to tire of the war in 1864 and vote Lincoln out - something Lincoln himself considered possible. In our scenario the Union armies might be making less progress on the ground, but on the other hand there would not be the mass casualties of the Overland battles.

 

[W. Richardson]

After Gettysburg the AoNV was in a downward spiral, had Grant not come east the spiral downward would have continued but at a slower pace. I still only see the AoNV being a force until mid 1865 or earlier if the "move on Washington D.C." that you made mention of takes place. If so I see it dying within miles of Washington D.C.

Respectfully,
William

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

With Meade still directing the AofP in 1864, the Confederates might be able to do it again.

Meade's limited activity in the latter half on 1863 wasn't without reason. He lost substantial numbers due to expiring enlistments and to deal with draft riots, plus his Gettysburg losses had not I think been made up for (both numbers and generals). Mine Run was a good plan mostly hamstrung by French's incompetence.

With a fresh, reorganized Army (and orders from Washington not to let Lee detach part of his army again) I see Meade being more active in 1864.

I'd have to check Rhea, but I think Meade and his staff were heavily involved in the operation that led to the Battle of the Wilderness, and Grant started to be more active in directing the AotP after that.

If we assume the Wilderness plays out much as it did IRL what does Meade do next? I would be inclined to think he neither retreats nor goes for Spotsylvania, but instead tries to consolidate his position and make Lee attack him.

Something else to consider: where is Burnside and IX Corps in all this? With Grant not in VA he's not operating as he did IRL.

 

[jackt62]

The main issue as I see it, as far as the ANV holding out longer, is Lincoln's reelection in 1864. The tide turned in Lincoln's favor not simply by Grant overseeing Meade's command of the AOTP in Virginia, but by Sherman's victory in Atlanta by the AOTT, etc. and Admiral Farragut's victory at Mobile Bay. That is to say, whether it was Grant or Meade commanding the AOTP, the victories that led to Lincoln's re-election and the subsequent drive to final military victory the following spring happened elsewhere. The one qualification I will make is that Grant as overall general of the Union armies (not simply the AOTP), planned the winning strategy of concentrating forces in time by directing the coordinated campaign's of Sherman in Georgia, Sigel in the Shenandoah Valley, Butler along the James River, and of course, Meade in Virginia. While they didn't all work as planned, in total it was a brilliant strategy.

 

[Bloody 11th]

Great responses everyone, thanks. Sorry he did move by the left flank even after defeats. I do agree that food was and still would of been a major downfall for the ANV. Does anyone think if Lee didn't become involved with Grant he might have turned north again just to try to feed his army and with the Shenandoah wrecked by Sheridan.

 

[jackt62]

Lee's best bet by the last months of the war was to link up with Joe Johnston and whatever remained of the AOT. This in fact, is what he was attempting to do.

 

[leftyhunter]

Meade's limited activity in the latter half on 1863 wasn't without reason. He lost substantial numbers due to expiring enlistments and to deal with draft riots, plus his Gettysburg losses had not I think been made up for (both numbers and generals). Mine Run was a good plan mostly hamstrung by French's incompetence.

With a fresh, reorganized Army (and orders from Washington not to let Lee detach part of his army again) I see Meade being more active in 1864.

I'd have to check Rhea, but I think Meade and his staff were heavily involved in the operation that led to the Battle of the Wilderness, and Grant started to be more active in directing the AotP after that.

If we assume the Wilderness plays out much as it did IRL what does Meade do next? I would be inclined to think he neither retreats nor goes for Spotsylvania, but instead tries to consolidate his position and make Lee attack him.

Something else to consider: where is Burnside and IX Corps in all this? With Grant not in VA he's not operating as he did IRL.

In the Fall of eighteen sixty three Burns occupied Knoxville Tennessee. Prior to that he was flanking General Rosecrans Eastern flank just before the battle of Chickumungua. One of Lincoln's major strategic goals was to liberate the Unionists in East Tennessee. Why would it matter who leads the AoP when is vital to safeguard the Unionists in East Tennessee?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Great responses everyone, thanks. Sorry he did move by the left flank even after defeats. I do agree that food was and still would of been a major downfall for the ANV. Does anyone think if Lee didn't become involved with Grant he might have turned north again just to try to feed his army and with the Shenandoah wrecked by Sheridan.

We will never know. With out food and a shrinking army due to desertion not likely. Keep in mind that when Lee learned that Meade assumed command of the AoP Lee said Meade doesn't make mistakes ".
Leftyhunter

 

[Lost Cause]

If Grant had stayed in the west he would've stuck to the AoT just like he did in the East. his goals were not geographical they were the southern army opposing him. Where he goes I go

Grant certainly spelled this out when he was initially reluctant to support Sherman's march to the sea.

 

[leftyhunter]

Just wanted to hear your opinions of how much longer the famed Army of Northern Virginia would have lasted if Grant doesn't come east and basically take over the Army of the Potomac(Meade is still labeled in charge of the AP"yeah right").
Now Sherman still marches and Hood and Johnson's armies do not unite with Lee. Grant stays west. Meade is really in charge of the AP.
In my opinion the war would last another year. Lee's army would of been able to holdout longer without the constant drain of men and resources.
I don't hold Grant as high in regard as some might, outside of my top 5 U.S. Generals. If you take Grant's Overland Campaign away in the spring and summer of 64' then it would have became very interesting. You do have to give Grant the credit he did what was completely necessary to take the ANV down. Move by the right flank!
So what if? I'm thinking Lincoln does stay with Meade. Lee and Meade meet on a couple more major battlefields. Lee maybe makes a move north again instead of being sieged at Petersburg. Possibly towards D.C. Lee could not withstand another major defeat this time on or almost on Northern soil again and surrenders that part of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the summer of 66'.
So what if Grant doesn't come east? Thoughts?

I will argue that it may not of made much of a difference if Grant went East or not. Lee has finite amount of men and Lee can not defend his food supplies in Georgia and the Carolina's. Lee can not defend the vital port of Wilmington North Carolina. Lee's top General Longstreet can't even beat Burnside at Knoxville. Lee can't stop mass desertion. Meade is no joke as a general. Yes Lee is a great general but he is not a miracle worker,
Leftyhunter

 

[Carronade]

Meade's limited activity in the latter half on 1863 wasn't without reason. He lost substantial numbers due to expiring enlistments and to deal with draft riots, plus his Gettysburg losses had not I think been made up for (both numbers and generals). Mine Run was a good plan mostly hamstrung by French's incompetence.

With a fresh, reorganized Army (and orders from Washington not to let Lee detach part of his army again) I see Meade being more active in 1864.

I'd have to check Rhea, but I think Meade and his staff were heavily involved in the operation that led to the Battle of the Wilderness, and Grant started to be more active in directing the AotP after that.

If we assume the Wilderness plays out much as it did IRL what does Meade do next? I would be inclined to think he neither retreats nor goes for Spotsylvania, but instead tries to consolidate his position and make Lee attack him.

Something else to consider: where is Burnside and IX Corps in all this? With Grant not in VA he's not operating as he did IRL.

I'm always a bit skeptical of the idea, for either side, that they can just settle down in a solid defensive position and the enemy will obligingly beat himself to death against it The Union plan had been to get through the Wilderness as quickly as possible and engage Lee in more open ground further south (IMO they made a major mistake letting themselves get drawn into a slugging match). I expect Meade would at least try to get out of the Wilderness and shift his supply lines to Fredericksburg/Aquia Creek.

Burnside and IX Corps is a good question; they formed a significant part of the Union preponderance over the ANV. I suppose we should start by considering the rationale for bringing them back east after Knoxville. They were not assigned to the AofP at that point. IX Corps' organization, including its own cavalry component, would be suitable for independent operations, perhaps somewhere along the southern coastline, where Burnside and his troops had seen their first actions of the war.

 

[dlavin]

with the army of the tennessee (Confederate) basically being manhandled, at some point Sherman/Grant would come east. But I dont think the Overland Campaign would have happened under anyone but Grant